James Jay Carafano: "Smart and tough" immigration enforcement fools no one

In his diary, the president wrote, "Immigration bill now in conference committee. Decided we could not acceptÉbill will probably die. Too, bad, because we've lost control of our borders." The president was Ronald Reagan. The year was 1982. Four years later, he took another shot at solving the problem--and got the bill he wanted. Reagan's three-piece solution to comprehensive reform was: * a mass amnesty, * followed by serious workplace and border enforcement, * paired with effective temporary worker programs. As it turned out, we got the amnesty--and nothing else. At the time of the '86 reforms, the illegal population was about 3 million. Now it is around 11 million. In retrospect, many of Reagan's closest advisors, including former Attorney General Edwin Meese, acknowledged it was a bad plan. And when the Bush administration offered up pretty much the same formula for comprehensive reform in 2007, Meese told them it was a bad plan. Bush paid no heed, but widespread public opposition ultimately forced Congress to reject it. Now, just two years later, we're seeing plenty of signs that the Obama administration plans to resurrect the same, failed approach yet again. But the administration has already damaged the prospects for serious reform. Their early actions have undermined public confidence that they intend to seriously enforce workplace and immigration laws. Their efforts at "smart and tough" enforcement so far look like neither. Last week Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano was on Capitol Hill, testifying in support of a bill that would gut REAL ID, a program to set security standards for driver's licenses. REAL ID was one of the key national security recommendations from the 9-11 Commission. It would also be a powerful tool for combating unlawful presence in the U.S. Vitiating the program is neither smart nor tough. Earlier, Napolitano announced that her department intends to rescind the 2007 Social Security No-Match Rule, a rule designed to clarify employer obligations to assure they don't knowingly hiring unauthorized aliens. As a result, the department will be doing less workplace enforcement--not more. That is unacceptable. The department also announced plans to restructure 287(g), a program that allows state and local governments to cooperate with the federal government on immigration enforcement. Henceforth, Homeland Security will restrict the cooperative approach authorized under the program to only a handful of crimes. The great strength of the 287(g) program was that it let state and local law enforcement negotiate with the department to build mutually agreeable programs. The resulting agreements served the needs of both the federal government and local communities. Now that flexibility looks to be lost. Many communities will probably lose interest in the initiative. Instead, they will do nothing. The department is also being criticized for pulling decision-making out of the Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection. These agencies have the experts who understand best what needs to be done on the border. Instead, policy-making is being centralized under officials with little practical border experience and a cadre that followed Napolitano from the Arizona governor's office to Washington. Finally, the department's "outreach" has been almost all one-sided. DHS officials have consulted extensively with "open border" advocates and illegal-immigrant rights groups to address their concerns. But dialogue with other interested communities has been virtually non-existent. The department's Orwellian effort to promote its enforcement policies as "smart and tough" is likely to fool no one. And if Americans don't feel confident their government will enforce the law, they won't be interested in immigration "reform." That is a tragedy. America needs to jump start its economy. Part of the answer is getting employers the legal work force they need, so that they can grow their businesses--which in turn will grow more jobs, the high-paying rewarding jobs Americans want. Rather than pave the way for serious immigration reform, the department appears to be kowtowing to constituencies and playing politics--an approach that compromises both our security and our prosperity.

Examiner Columnist James Jay Carafano is a senior research fellow for national security at The Heritage Foundation (www.heritage.org heritage.org)